Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the agent knows something is written but nothing destructive or external happens. The description adds real context beyond that: it discloses the return payload shape (distinct searches, rows with missing inputs, reused searches, one maximum) and explicitly bounds the side effect with 'Nothing runs yet', resolving the apparent tension between a write flag and a dry-run-like behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with a colon-delimited enumeration of the quote's contents; no filler and no repetition. It is dense and jargon-heavy, but every clause carries information and the key safety fact ('Nothing runs yet') lands last for emphasis.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description does cover the return payload, which is the main thing an agent needs. But for a six-parameter, nested-object, non-read-only tool with zero schema documentation, it leaves the identifier parameters and the binding field/value contract unexplained, and it does not say what an agent should do with the quote (e.g., hand it to approve_investigation_batch) or how missing-input rows should be resolved.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% across six parameters, five of them required, including a nested bindings object with field/value pairs. The description only loosely gestures at bindings ('binds the selected rows to the inputs'), record_ids ('selected rows'), and reuse_completed ('searches reused from earlier work'). It says nothing about request_id, function_id, collection_id, the field/value semantics of a binding, or the cardinality limits (max 200 rows, max 8 bindings).

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource: it binds selected rows to inputs and returns a single quote, enumerating what the quote contains (distinct searches, rows with missing inputs, reused searches, a maximum). The title 'Quote a run over list rows' reinforces the resource. It is distinguishable from siblings like approve_investigation_batch or get_investigation_batch, though the domain terms 'quote', 'inputs', and 'searches' are never defined.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

'Nothing runs yet' implies this is a pre-execution step that precedes approval/execution, which is useful implied sequencing. However, it never names the alternative tools (approve_investigation_batch, prepare_research_rule) or states prerequisites such as an existing investigation function or collection. Usage is inferable but not explicit.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.